You have reached a collection of archived material.

The content available is no longer being updated and may no longer be applicable as a result of changes in law, regulation and/or administration. If you wish to see the latest content, please visit the current version of the site.

For persons with disabilities experiencing difficulties accessing content on archive.defense.gov, please use the DoD Section 508 Form. In this form, please indicate the nature of your accessibility issue/problem and your contact information so we can address your issue or question.

DoD News

News Article

Leaders Can Pave Way for Openly Gay Troops, General Says

By Lisa DanielAmerican Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Nov. 30, 2010  A change in the law that bans gay men and lesbians from serving openly in the military can be implemented without irreparable harm, the co-chair of a Pentagon working group that studied the matter said yesterday.

Department of Defense General Counsel Jeh C. Johnson and U.S. Army Gen. Carter Ham conduct a press briefing at the Pentagon discussing the public release of the "Dont Ask, Dont Tell" Comprehensive Working Group report, Nov. 30, 2010. DOD photo by U.S. Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Chad J. McNeeley(Click photo for screen-resolution image);high-resolution image available.

“It’s my belief, having now looked this matter extensively over nine months, that the leaders of our services -- all services, all components -- are so good today, so experienced today, that they can effectively implement this change, maintain unit cohesion, and a strong focus on mission accomplishment,” Army Gen. Carter F. Ham, commanding general of U.S. Army Europe, said.

Ham and Jeh C. Johnson, the Defense Department’s general counsel and the working group’s other co-chair, discussed their findings in an interview with the Pentagon Channel and American Forces Press Service.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates appointed Ham and Johnson early this year to lead the group to determine the effects on the military if the law is changed to allow gays to serve openly. Ham and Johnson made their findings public today, as well as their report, which assesses the matter and gives recommendations for moving forward.

A majority -- about 55 percent -- of respondents to a survey sent to 400,000 servicemembers in the active and reserve components said allowing gays to serve openly would have either no effect or a balance of positive and negative effects on the military, and between 15 and 20 percent said such a change would have only positive effects.

About 30 percent of respondents said overturning the law would have a mostly negative impact, and those respondents mostly were part of the warfighting specialties, Ham said.

Results showed slight trends in differences among members of each service, Ham said, adding that he was surprised the feedback showed few trends among age groups.

The issue has come under increasing scrutiny as a lawsuit challenging the 17-year-old law worked its way through the federal courts this year, and is scheduled to be heard by a federal appeals court in the spring. Congress has before it a bill that would repeal the law, but it is unclear yet whether they will vote on it before the session ends Dec. 30 and a new Congress takes over in January.

Meanwhile, President Barack Obama, Gates, and Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have said they support congressional repeal of the law.

One focus of the debate is whether allowing gays to serve openly would be detrimental to military cohesion.

“Any time a policy change of this order is considered, we know there are inherent risks,” Ham said. “In my view, the greatest risk comes if repeal is ordered and we imperfectly apply the changes that are needed.”

Those risks must receive special scrutiny in a forward-deployed area, Ham said, but strong leadership can mitigate risks. “Leadership is so key in the implementation phase,” he said.

Ham and Johnson recommended changes they believe the services should start making or thinking about making if the law is overturned.

“For those of us in uniform, we should take this time we have now to think about repeal, and be prepared for repeal should it come,” Ham said. The general cautioned, however, that all military members must uphold the law that is in place.

“A key point for all us in uniform to remember as we think about Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is that the current law is in effect, and all us in uniform have sworn an oath to uphold the law,” he said.

If the law is overturned, they said, the services will need to increase costs in training and education, but should not incur the high cost of creating separate facilities, as has been discussed.

“We strongly recommend against establishing separate facilities,” Ham said. “We think that is the wrong direction for the Department of Defense.”

The biggest impact for transitioning the military to accepting openly gay servicemembers, they said, will be in the area of benefits.

“We recommend the services closely analyze the costs of extending certain benefits once the secretary of defense and Congress make decisions about which, if any, of the benefits proposals we make are adopted,” Ham said.

Benefits for same-sex partners of servicemembers “is an issue we spent a lot of time on,” Johnson said. “It’s a complex issue. In and of itself, it could absorb a working group for months.”

The services should look at three categories of benefits, Johnson said. Some that are “member designated,” such as life insurance, already can be given to a same-sex partner or anyone the servicemember chooses, he said. The services should consider whether other benefits can be reclassified as “member designated,” he said.

Some benefits cannot be extended to same-sex partners because of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which trumps all state laws, Johnson noted.

Johnson said Congress should change the Uniform Code of Military Justice to remove language forbidding consensual sodomy. The change should be made regardless of whether the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law is overturned to put the UCMJ in agreement with a seven-year-old Supreme Court decision, he said.

The report further recommends that all servicemembers who were discharged under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell should be permitted to re-enlist. “The fact that they were separated pursuant to this law should be set aside as irrelevant,” Johnson said.

Under the current legislation before Congress, repeal would become effective only after the president, secretary of defense and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify in writing that new Defense Department regulations and policies are consistent with unit cohesion, retention and recruitment, Johnson said.

“If they pass the legislation, we immediately go into this time where we create new policies and regulations, then deliver it to Congress,” he said. There is no limit on how much time the administration can take in delivering its plans. If Congress approves them, it would take 60 days to officially remove Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, he said.

Comments

Article is closed to new comments.

The opinions expressed in the following comments do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Department of Defense.

12/1/2010 10:37:38 PM
As for what goes on in our society, military, and public life no religion in the USA has the right (maybe the audacity) to dictate to others what is acceptable. As a heterosexual who has served in the military I agree with the Sec Def and Chairman on how best to address this issue. As a citizen, not in the &quot;Christian&quot; faith, I am always appalled at their insistence to force their belief system on others. I find it intensely ironic that those who profess to follow a religion born from the actions of a man who demonstrated such compassion and acceptance towards mankind so sparingly practice compassion and acceptance.- T Williamson, Colorado

12/1/2010 10:36:10 PM
No offense Mr. Flippo, but to which God do you refer. The last I checked freedom of religion is a cornerstone of our nation. I feel many &quot;Christians&quot; in this nation take a position of oppression when we insist that our laws should be based on the Bible. The hipocrisy of said individuals is that no one screams foul louder when Christians are persecuted under the religious laws of other countries. The separation of church and state is a concept that as not been fully embraced by many individuals in this country. I have no problem if in your church you prescribe to and practice a certain set of &quot;standards&quot; but I will ask that you not impose your religion upon my house, my church, synagogue, temple, mosque, monastery, or shrine. And in return I will do the same. continued in another posting...- T Williamson, Colorado

12/1/2010 2:46:11 PM
The data in shows a higher resistance among the Marine Corps and combat arms units, yes, but still less than half. A larger minority is not the same as a majority or even the largest minority.
Most questions boiled down to: Positive impact, negative impact, mixed impact, neutral impact.
The largest groups, across the board, where neutral impact closely followed by mixed impact. (Who would have guessed an issue this polarizing would have such a grey area?)
The report is available on this site, I'd recommend anyone who's actually concerned about this issue to read it themselves rather than rely on tibits posted by journalists, bloggers, and posters.- Chris, California

11/30/2010 5:25:14 PM
Why are they so eager to pass the DADT when Gates made the statement that data also show that servicemembers in combat arms specialties- mostly in the Army and Marine Corps, but also in the special operations from the Navy and Air Force- have a higher level of discomfort and resistance to changing the current policy Seems to me it would best to leave this matter alone till we are through fighting in Afghanistan and other parts of the world, My goodnes, has our leaders turn to be atheist and forgetting the laws of God- Charles Flippo, Dora Al